Wouldn't one solution be to list measurements in two formats.  That way
the reviewing agency is happy and the original measuring system is noted
as well.  Something like - Feature 1 is a former house foundation that
measures 7 m × 17 m (23 ft × 56 ft) with a 2 m (6.5 ft) deep cellar.



Sean B. Dunham, RPA
Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc.
Phone:  517-788-3550 / FAX:  517-788-6594
e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccrginc.com

>>> [log in to unmask] 09/10/03 11:30AM >>>
One problem with using inches, pints, and hectares is that federal
agencies
usually require metric measurement. As well, publications often direct
metric
for linear measurements. Another issue is that we are talking about
pieces of
objects, not complete dishes, teapots, and full-length boards. I dont
see
anything wrong with stating that "calculations based on the arc of a
rim sherd
suggests this 2.5 centimeter long fragment probably measured 9-inches
when
complete." In my experiece, federal and state agencies,  wanted
distances measured in
metric to satisfy reviewing agencies. Instead of beating your breasts
and
making "Custer's last stand" on this issue, why not find out what your
SHPO
thinks on this issue and then ask the lead agency directing your client
to hire you
what they want in your reports?

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.